離婚後共同親権とフェミニズムの関連について考察した1986年の論文
Katharine T. Bartlettによる以下のような論文がありましてですね。
“Katharine T. Bartlett & Carol B. Stack, Joint Custody, Feminism and the Dependency Dilemma, 2 Berkeley Women's Law Journal 9-41 (1986) ”
これ、1986年の論文です。こういうのを見つけると日本はどんだけ遅れてるのかと思わされます。
タイトルが“Joint Custody, Feminism and the Dependency Dilemma（共同親権、フェミニズム、依存性のジレンマ）”で、離婚後共同親権とフェミニズムの関連について30年以上前にこういう研究がされていたわけですからねぇ。
全文は大変なので、とりあえずIntroduction部分のみ記事末尾に転記しました。機械翻訳でもして読んでみてほしいところです。
個人的には以下の部分を離婚後共同親権に不安を抱いている日本のフェミニストに読んでもらいたいという思い*1。
（略）we explain that much of the detriment suffered by women under joint custody statutes is attributable not to joint custody statutes themselves, but to the holdover of traditional attitudes and practices about child custody. We argue that we should direct our efforts toward improving the circumstances for women within which custody decisions are made and toward purging the stereotype-bound premises which continue to pervade the resolution of these disputes, rather than rejecting joint custody altogether.
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2383&context=faculty_scholarship（訳）
共同親権制度で女性が被る損害の多くは、共同親権制度そのものに起因するのではなく、子の監護に関する伝統的な態度と慣習が残っていることに起因する。共同親権制度を拒絶するのではなく、むしろ親権の決定が下される女性の状況を改善し、これらの紛争の解決を先延ばしにしているステレオタイプに縛られた前提を一掃することに私たちの努力を傾けるべきである。
これ、現在の日本でもそのまま当てはまる指摘だと思いますよ。
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2383&context=faculty_scholarshipJoint Custody, Feminism and the Dependency Dilemma
Introduction
Dependency is a dilemma for women. Women's dependency, which arises largely from their status as caregivers, can be both a strength and a source of vulnerability and exploitation. The dependent relationships which women form are often coercive and degrading, but at the same time they may satisfy the needs of women for affirmation and influence. Efforts to overcome the oppressive aspects of dependency, while successful in some respects and for some women, may exacerbate the problem in other ways.
The issue of joint custody illustrates the contradictory nature of women's dependency. Joint custody has the potential both to help women develop more independence and to aggravate the problematic aspects of dependency inn women's lives. Although joint custody was expected to help women, it has had mixed effects, benefiting some women, hurting others, and for still others, helping and hurting at the same time.
This article examines joint custody as an example of the complicated nature of women's dependency. In Section I, we set the movement toward joint custody in the context of the egalitarian goals of women's rights groups in the 1970's. We then describe the emergence of the feminist critique of this movement in the 1980s.
In the next two sections of the Article, we explore the shortcomings of the joint custody critique. In Section II, we examine different areas of women's dependency, including the relationships of women to men, to children, and to the state. Within these areas, we analyze differences in the experience and consciousness of situations of dependency in which women find themselves. These differences, based on race, social class and generation, may affect how women respond to changes in custody rules. We conclude that in assuming a single yardstick for evaluating the effects of joint custody on women, the feminist critique of joint custody is incomplete and inconclusive, overlooking the differences which structure women's relationships to the state, to the courts, to public and private patriarchy, and to race and social class.
In Section III, we examine the relationship between custody norms ideology, emphasizing both the importance of law in forming ideology and the importance of ideology in changing social attitudes and practices. We conclude that the critique of joint custody errs in ignoring or underestimating both of these factors and that joint custody is ideologically a desirable alternative to sole custody.
Finally, in Section IV, we explain that much of the detriment suffered by women under joint custody statutes is attributable not to joint custody statutes themselves, but to the holdover of traditional attitudes and practices about child custody. We argue that we should direct our efforts toward improving the circumstances for women within which custody decisions are made and toward purging the stereotype-bound premises which continue to pervade the resolution of these disputes, rather than rejecting joint custody altogether.
We note that the effect of joint custody upon women is not the only, or even the most important, focus in evaluating joint custody. A more complete approach would necessarily examine the effects of joint custody and other custody alternatives on children. There is already some evidence supporting the view that joint custody offers substantial benefits over other alternatives for many children. Further studies may offer more guidance in this area, but they are unlikely to moot the debate over the impact of joint custody on the interests of women. The results of studies designed to ascertain the welfare of children are rarely, if ever, conclusive. Moreover, they take place in a political and social context which affects both an assessment of the evidence and what we might say about the primacy of the child's best interests. Thus, how we interpret the interests of children inevitably will be influenced by how we evaluate the interests of mothers and fathers as well. This Article focuses on the interests of mothers.
（※タイポがかなりあると思うので、おかしいと思ったら原文を確認してください）
*1:まあ、“scopedogが英語を引用するのはコケ脅し”だとか言って読もうとすらしないEoH-GS氏には何も期待していませんが
